Mary Dyer, Quaker Martyr and Troublemaker Supreme

On the front lawn of the capital building of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts near the famed Boston Commons sits a statue of a woman. Who was this woman and why did the Massachusetts government choose to honor her in this way? Why, because an earlier version of the Massachusets government had hung her for being a dangerous and disruptive person. And when you hang someone, and feel bad, the only way to make it up is to create a statue of them a couple centuries later.This woman's name was Mary Dyer and she lived and was hung in the 17th Century.

Mary Dyer is widely credited as the only woman hung for heresy in Massachusetts. She is also, so they say, an ancestor of mine. (see https://history-for-fun-profit-and-insight.blogspot.com/2018/06/genetics-race-geneology-famous.html for some of my thoughts on these things please.)

And personally, despite a lot of self-righteous posturing and simplistic explanations of what occured, there actually were some complex issues involved. (Honestly, I lived in the Boston area for three years. I found it a rather smug and self righteous place and the fact that they responded to hanging a woman, essentially because the government considered itself the one true way and she disruptively insisted they weren't, by building a statue to her 150 years or so later, acting as if they were above all things and had now found the one true way again by saying they were above such things, just strikes me as an equally smug and dangerously self-righteous thing to.  My opinion is if the government and ruling class of Boston hung someone once, sooner or later they will be tempted to do it again, and for the same reason --that person is very, very bad because he criticized the moral authority of the ruling class of Massachusetts.)

So who was Mary Dyer and what did she do that was so awful and disruptive anyway? What motivated people to consider her to be someone best killed? There's a lot of writing on it

Well, was it because she was a Quaker? And if so, what was it about Quakers that excited the government of Massachusetts so much.

First, the government of Massachusetts at the time was controlled by Puritans. Although both the Puritans and the Quakers were Christian sects that had originated in England, they were very different in their approaches to society, authority, and approach to God. 

The Puritans were a rigid sect, with a hierarchical structure, in which the authorities, by virtue of their position and education in such matters, interpreted the Bible and the will of God and set these teachings out for their members, expecting them to be obeyed and followed.  

The Quakers, by contrast, were (and still often are) an anarchistic group that believed that each of their members could sense the will of God guiding them from within. Thus a Quaker (or more properly, as they later became known, a member of the Religious Society of Friends) not only had no need of an authority figure when they wished religious guidance, and felt quite comfortable ignoring the authorities in even the most important of things, with their belief that God could guide them from within, they were prone to completely disregard and even contradict the Puritan authorities. They would even go so far as to criticize them publicly. And they would encourage others to do so as well. 

And many people of the time considered Quakers to be a dangerous, insane, fringe element, of absolutely no use to the good people of mainstream society. During this time, Quakers were known to do such things as take off all their clothes, enter a Puritan church in mid-service while still completely undressed, and then, without missing a beat, having become the focus of attention instead of the designated preacher, lecture all present, including the preacher, on the errors of their ways and the problems with Puritan theology in general. This was called "going naked for a sign." 

(Citations: 1, https://www.jstor.org/stable/41946859?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents 2. https://www.questia.com/library/journal/1P3-3810400551/naked-quakers-who-were-not-so-naked-seventeenth-century  and elsewhere) 

In fact, the very term "Quaker" was a slur used because these religious fanatics would tend to became excited and "quake" when they preached or did things like this. And if the act of entering someone else's church, naked, and telling them they were not only praying wrong but their entire society was based on a misinterpretation of the Bible, sounds self destructive, it is important to understand that at this time the "Quakers" (members of what was later named the Religious Society of Friends) believed that the second coming was imminent, Jesus was going to return shortly, and we would all be judged and it was a good idea to get your own house and theological affairs in order shortly as the end was nigh. 

Now, for the record, to the best of my knowledge, Mary Dyer never did this (although it's safe to say I had other ancestors who surely must have done so) but this is how members of her sect were viewed by the people who hung her. 

So to some extent, the Quaker-Puritan rift grew out of a difference between authoritarian "top-down" Christian teachings and "bottom-up" each man or woman can find guide through their own efforts sort of Christianity as well as just a general fear of disruptive, anarchistic elements that would spread chaos and disorder. (all of which sound like things that, to me at least, the authorities in Boston sill oppose.) 

In 1661, Edward Burroughs wrote a book on the subject called "A Declaration of the Sad and Great Persecution and Martyrdom of the People of God, called Quakers, in New-England, for the Worshipping of God." It contains a detailed description of the hanging of Mary Dyer as well as the persecution of other Quakers in this place. The book begins by stating that it is "A DECLARATION Of some part of the S U F F E R I NG S of the People of God (in scorn called QUAKERS) from the Professors in NEW-ENGLAND, Only for the Exercise of their Consciences to the Lord, and Obeying and Confessing to the T RUTH , as in his Light he had discovered it to them." Note the use of the term "Professors" to describe the people who persecuted them, another sign of the "authoritarian-anti-authoritarian" aspect of the disagreements between the two groups. In this context, it's worth pointing out that Harvard, the oldest university in the USA, began as a theological institute to train Preachers in Puritan Massachusetts.  

Which brings us to poor Mary Dyer. Yes, she was hung, but not only had she been told by the authorities in Massachusetts to get out and stay out (Rhode Island being the normal destination for these sorts of troublemakers and intellectual non-conformists of all types and stripes of the time), but she had defied this order and returned, repeatedly. 

In their opinion, she, and people like her, had to be exiled as they did things like encourage people to have small, private Bible study groups where they read and discussed the Bible among each other instead of waiting for an educated, authority figure to explain it to them as was intended. Now, for the record, this was in 1637, a few years before Mary Dyer converted to Quakerism, but it was nevertheless a dangerous act to study the Bible on one's own and could easily lead to such problems as egalitarianism and anarchy. 

Not only did the authorities tell her to stop, but to show the other residents of Massachusetts how wrong and evil her actions were, 1n 1638, they dug up her still born infant (born and died on October 17, 1637) and told people what they had found. Governor Winthrop himself declared the baby to be: "it was of ordinary bigness; it had a face, but no head, and the ears stood upon the shoulders and were like an ape’s; it had no forehead, but over the eyes four horns, hard and sharp; two of them were above one inch long, the other two shorter; the eyes standing out, and the mouth also; the nose hooked upward; all over the breast and back full of sharp pricks and scales, like a thornback [i.e., a skate or ray], the navel and all the belly, with the distinction of the sex, were where the back should be, and the back and hips before, where the belly should have been; behind, between the shoulders, it had two mouths, and in each of them a piece of red flesh sticking out; it had arms and legs as other children; but, instead of toes, it had on each foot three claws, like a young fowl, with sharp talons.”

You think she'd get the message that she just wasn't wanted in Massachusetts. On the other hand, apparently, even though it was the governor who did it, taking a woman and telling people that her still-born child had been a demonic creature, no doubt do to his mother's heretical views, as demonstrated by trying to encourage independent Bible study groups, somehow failed to convince Mary Dyer that the authorities were terribly Christian and following the path of Christ. 

From this time onward, Mary Dyer sought religious truth and soon converted to being a Quaker. She then spent the next 23 years traveling New England, with a side trip to the old country of (old) England, meeting with Quakers, defying bans on the presence of Quakers, preaching publicly, even where it was forbidden, and was often arrested along the way. On June 1, 1660, the authorities in Boston became sick of her antics and hung her because she just wouldn't stop (which sounds like the way a lot of my Quaker relatives act when they think they are right, me too actually. Go ahead, hang us, we don't care. We're on a mission from God. No, really, we are. I felt it one day. Honest.)

But it's okay because they built a statue to her later.

For a good biography of Mary Dyer see:
http://www.quakersintheworld.org/quakers-in-action/15/Mary-Dyer

Edward Burrough in A Declaration of the Sad and Great Persecution and Martyrdom of the People of God, called Quakers, in New-England, for the Worshipping of God (1661)

https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?referer=https://www.google.com/&httpsredir=1&article=1023&context=etas

Miniature Wargaming -- 15mm Boxer Rebellion British Force -1900

Greetings! It's been almost a month and it seems the most viewed posts on the blog are the ones with the miniature wargaming figures. Fair enough, I shall try to provide a steady stream of them, but I do hope that if you enjoy them you will also take some time and check out some of the other posts on this blog. I'm trying to post here once or twice a week with a steady flow of pieces on real history, historiography (historiography being the study of what is and is not history and how history is presented and defined), discussions of pseudo-historical claims, and product reviews --as well as photos of my and other people's miniature wargames and wargame figures. 

If you'd like, you might even leave a comment, ask a question, or see if you can get a discussion going on a post or two.

A few weeks ago, I shared photos of my American force for the Boxer Rebellion, an uprising that occurred in China in the year 1900. The uprising happened in response to Colonialist pressures on China and reactions to changes in society induced by Colonialism, and the response was large numbers of angry Chinese trying to kill missionaries and their Chinese converts, tear apart railroad tracks and telegraph lines, and besiege the foreign embassies, embassies whose presence had been imposed on China in the aftermath of previous colonial wars including the Opium War. 

Marines and sailors from several nations scrambled to defend the missionaries and their converts as well as to protect and defend their national interests. Meanwhile, an international force from several nations was gathered to march and protect the embassies were under siege. While all this was going on, the Chinese military responded by first trying to put down the Boxers but then sided with them to try to keep foreigners from invading their nations. 

The British force assembled.

This is my British force for the Boxer Rebellion. The figures are in 15mm scale where a man is approximately 15mm or a little larger. The ruler is to show scale. If one notices the British force, while quite large, actually contains very few British, but instead is mostly Indians from India. 

Another view of the assembled British force in 15mm scale.

British artillery and machine guns for the Boxer Rebellion. Details below in the close ups.

An artillery unit from Hong Kong was sent to fight in the Boxer Rebellion. They were Indians (Sikhs and Punjabis if I remember correctly but don't quote me on that) with small mountain guns. These figures and cannons come from Irregular Miniatures. 

British machine guns --the crews are Irregular Miniatures British colonial era artillery crew figures, but the guns were converted from left over plastic machine guns found in the spare parts box --the manufacturer long forgotten,.

Indian machine gun crews in British service. As above the crews are from Irregular Miniatures with the guns cobbled together from items taken from the spares box. (most serious wargamers have a spare parts box..) 

British artillery crews with larger guns as used in China. Figures and crews come from Old Glory 15s. As always painted and based by myself.

British marines circa 1900. In actual practice, in the field, they tended to take their bright,blue jackets and replace them with white clothing that they would dye tan or khaki. Yes, they would dye the while clothes themselves sometimes by soaking them in tea until they became permanently stained. On the other hand, a Boxer Rebellion force has enough tan and those blue coats look nice. Notice the officer (not in blue) and the trumpeter. Again figures are from Old Glory 15s and painted by myself.  

Sikhs with a White officer. The first allied unit to enter Beijing to lift the siege on the embassies was a unit of British sikhs. They entered the city through the sewer gate. 

British sailors formed into a naval landing party for duty on land. These figures are from minifigs, probably from their Zulu War range. It's tough to say after many years.

Bengal lancers. If you've got a British colonial force, well, you've got to include Bengal lancers. And, yes, several units of Bengal lancers were sent to China during the Boxer Rebellion. Most fought quite well. 

This is an unusual unit that served in the British force during the Boxer Rebellion. The British at the time had not only taken Hong Kong as their colony (I feel compelled to point out that when the British took Hong Kong from the Chinese there was no city there. The city developed under the British.) but they had also taken an area of China called Wei-Hai-Wei and made it another colony. For several reasons, the British raised a regiment of soldiers there and recruited them from the local populace. So at the beginning of the Boxer Uprising the British had a regiment of Chinese troops with White officers already in China. This became part of the British forces that fought against the Boxers. They fought quite well, much to the surprise of many. The surprise was not only that the Chinese fought well against other Chinese but that many Europeans did not believe Chinese were genetically capable of being good soldiers. The British proved that with good leadership and training, they were quite capable of becoming good soldiers.






Another view of the Chinese Regiment in the British army in 15mm scale. Again the figures are manufactured by Old Glory 15s and painted by me.




A close up of soldiers of the Chinese regiment. Three troopers and a White officer.

Finally, the only actual non-colonial infantry unit that fought for the British in the Boxer Rebellion, the Welsh Fusiliers. A distinguished regiment, this regiment fought well in the conflict. Two points of history. First, ever since the Boxer Rebellion, the Welsh Fusiliers and the United States Marine Corp swap Birthday cards on their birthday in memory of having served side by side in this conflict. Second, this same regiment, over a century previously, had fought in the American revolution.

Although few modernized military forces of the time carried flags in battle at this time, during the Boxer Rebellion many of the allied units took to carrying national flags while in combat during the conflict. This was to reduce friendly fire incidents.  

A second shot of the Welsh Fusiliers in 15mm scale. These figures, again, are from Old Glory 15s and painted by myself. 

Did Marilyn Monroe get a rib removed to appear more slender?

(originally written on Wednesday, December 23, 2015 and has appeared on other blogs of mine.)

Did Marilyn Monroe get a rib removed to appear more slender?

I seem to be on a skepticism kick. I am, it seems, slightly obsessed lately with trying to correct false statements and debunk rumors --perhaps even fight a little bit of hysteria. Of course, this is what I was strongly into in the '90s, back when I wrote the two "Scams from the Great Beyond" books. (Books that I finally put back in print. Buy them if you'd like at Amazon.com ) We'll see how long this lasts.

In the meantime, I recently heard a claim that Marilyn Monroe had two of her ribs removed in order to make herself more slender and attractive. I found this a little difficult to accept as, although I make no claims at being an expert, I've read two books on Marilyn, both collections of interesting essays, as well as the occasional magazine and newspaper article, as well as portions of her on-line FBI files. (Yes, the FBI kept files on Marilyn Monroe, particularly after and during her marriage to Arthur Miller. They make fascinating reading, particularly since they are so creepy and invasive and were done at taxpayer expense by an organization that I wish had a more admirable history.) At one point, I did a very cursory investigation into her death (somewhat superficial. I only used public, published secondary sources and not the original documents), and found this fascinating too. (And for those interested, my impression is that there was something wrong with the investigation, but it doesn't necessarily imply suicide or a murder cover up, although I don't deny these as possibilities. It seems that her two doctors had not always communicated well and one theory is that they'd accidentally between the two of them over prescribed drugs, and the authorities wished to cover it up.) She was a fascinating woman, paradoxical and intriguing in many ways. Despite this reading, I'd never heard such a thing as a story of Marilyn Monroe having her ribs removed.

Therefore I did a bit of on-line research. Although I don't consider it definitive, there are at least two strong arguments that Marilyn Monroe never had a rib removed.

First, according to an article in Vogue on stomach slimming surgical practices, plastic surgeon, John E. Sherman of Cornell Medical School, says that the surgical practice of rib removal for cosmetic reasons has never, to the best of his knowledge, ever actually been done, ever. He also says that it would be a very dangerous operation as the ribs are near the lungs.

Says the Vogue article
"As far as the won't die rumors about movie stars (Rachel Welch, Cher) having their lower ribs removed to make for a smaller waist, Sherman insists that he's never heard of such an operation actually taking place. "I'm sure, because people always bring it up, that someone's done it, somewhere," he says. "But there's never been anything published about it; no one has ever owned up to performing such a procedure, much less to having had one. To risk your life - your ribs are right there up against your lung tissue - for what would be a relatively minor change in aesthetics would be crazy." 

That seems pretty definitive.

Secondly, Marilyn Monroe's autopsy report has been released to the public. Although I've made no effort to seek out a copy of the original document, one website does claim to have published the autopsy report on-line. The autopsy report does not mention any missing ribs.

Instead, the relevant portion states the following:
"Skeletomuscular system: The clavicle, ribs, vertebrae and pelvic bones show fracture lines. All bones of the extremities are examined by palpation showing no evidence of fracture." 

Finally, and one of the reasons that Marilyn Monroe interests me is the way in which a human being was transformed, transformed both into a blonde comic sex icon, interesting since she was not a natural blonde, nor terribly happy nor reportedly able to truly enjoy sex (it was reportedly late in life that she thanked her psychiatrist for teaching her how to achieve orgasm), and as part of this has lost all privacy, both in life and in death, Marilyn Monroe's 1954 x-rays were reportedly recently put up for sale at public auction. Of course, this only shows that she'd maintained all her ribs at a point in time nine years before her death, but all the ribs do appear to be present.

In an effort to combat misinformation and lies, therefore, I share this image of Marilyn Monroe as you've never seen her before. Note how she posed with her hands on her hips. All the best, and take care. 

Peter Huston 

Note: This oriiginally appeared at http://peterhuston.blogspot.com/2012/09/did-marilyn-monroe-get-rib-removed-to.html on September 6, 2012 

Genetics, Race, Geneology, Famous Ancestors, and Related Fields

My master's thesis at Cornell was actually in the field of the history of science and focused on the Peking Man paleontological digs of the 1920s and 1930s. (If you would like you can find a copy of it here: https://ecommons.cornell.edu/handle/1813/8399  It's free to read and download. I'm very proud of it.)

For this reason, I have a strong background and interest in the history of science in the areas of evolution, paleontology, and related fields. At one point, while working on the thesis while struggling to understand the newer sub-field of DNA evidence and its use in understanding human history and evolutionary science, I picked up a book on this area of science aimed at a general audience entitled, "Mapping  Human History -Genes, Race, and Our Common origins." Written by Steve Olsen, a science journalist, the work has a lot of interesting information in it although speaking as a historian, at times I felt it seemed determined to conform to current political thought. (It's been years since I have read the book, but I remember feeling at times that the author seemed absolutely determined to dismiss the concept of race among humans. Is there such a thing as race? Race is a classification system and like all classification systems it has fuzzy boundaries. Does it measure real differences? Sometimes. Has it been misused? Of course, history shows this. Does it have a usefulness? Sometimes. Some races of people are more prone to some health problems than others. Is racism a real problem in our society? Of course, but simply making blanket assertions that race does not exist is going to do little to end the problem in my opinion.)

But that's not my topic for today. Instead I am going to share Olsen's interesting views on genealogy, human intermingling, and human heredity.

Many  people like to talk about their genealogy and prominent ancestors. If they are American, a society where one is not supposed to consider oneself better than other do to one's ancestry, they sometimes just drop ancestors casually, assuring those listening that it's "just interesting" and "not important." While travelling in Asia, I met someone, an American my age, three times and enjoyed each encounter very much. However, at some point during each encounter, each of these three times, he made a mention, always assuring me it was unimportant, that among his ancestors was Daniel Boone.

But is this uncommon? And even if it is, what are the chances that this is really true? That these famous people really are their ancestors?

Let's take these questions in order. First, is it uncommon to have a famous ancestor?

According to Olsen (page 46 in this book), Joseph Chang, a Yale statistician, has looked at issues of ancestry and inter-mingling and come to an interesting conclusion. If we look at all the people who lived 800 years ago, then according to Olsen's reporting of Chang, humanity of the time falls into two categories. The first are people who had ancestors who survived to reproduce offspring who in turn had offspring and so on for a few generations or so. In other words, the people who have descendants who are still around today.

The second are people who either did not reproduce or whose children did not reproduce or whose descent line, somewhere down the line, got cut off. In other words, people who do not have descendants who are still around today. (Chang wrote about this in a paper called "Recent Common Ancestors of All Present Day Individuals" which appeared in a journal called Advances in Applied Probability on pages 1002-1026 of volume 31 in the year 1999. I confess I haven't read it, but it's probably quite interesting. Seriously.)

Now, interestingly enough, Chang argues that while people in the second category, no matter how famous, are not anyone's ancestor, statistically speaking, people in the first category, statistically speaking, are quite likely to be an ancestor of everyone alive today. Which despite the fact that people don't actually marry and intermarry between groups based on statistical likelihood is quite interesting.

In other words, if someone should come to you and say, for example, "I have a famous ancestor, King Bobo, the Leper, of East Westphalia" (or some other king of some other place) and should he or she have lived 800 years ago or more, you are within your rights to reply with an answer like "No sh*t? Really? Chances are he's my ancestor too." And, statistically speaking, you are within your rights.

Really. Go ahead. Feel free.

Which brings us to interesting situation number two, again according to Olsen and this book (on page 48).

When we look at geneaology, few people consider, or at least discuss, the issue of false paternity. In other words, there is a percentage of people whose father is not who they think their father is. In some cases, their legal father may not only not be their biological father, but he may have no idea that he is not their biological father. Statistically, yes, we are again speaking statistically, this does happen but nobody knows how often. (In fact, this issue played a big part in the plot of the second issue ever made of the TV show House, a show about an eccentric, angry doctor who is able to diagnose medical cases that most find undiagnosable. The episode was called, for obvious reasons, Paternity )

In other cases, a person might not just be confused as to who his or her biological father is but also who his or her biological mother is. In other words, he or she might be raised by two people who are not his or her biological parents, and have no idea at all that this is the case. There are many reasons why this might happen, some of them quite well intentioned. Adoption is one such case, of course, or simply taking an abandoned or orphaned infant and choosing not to tell them that they are not a biological child (although, statistically speaking, they did have common ancestors 800 years or so ago, as described above). Olsen also mentions that there might be cases such as an accidental or even intentional swap of infants in a hospital somewhere where neither parent or child is aware of their real (or un-real) connection.

Olsen states that medical students are taught that between 5 and 10 percent of people do not have the genetics they believe they have because of issues of non-paternity. He also states that non-published data from genetic studies supports this, although, of course, this is and would be impossible to confirm without finding the non-specified, unpublished studies.

Interestingly, Olsen states that this is one way in which ethnic groups and races mix without people being aware of it.

For our purposes here, what's important is to remember, one, geneaologies are not always 100% accurate. Now this can work both ways, so, for instance, if you we go back 8 generations, you would have 2 to the 8th power or 256 ancestors, going one more generation, assuming no one has married cousins at any point in the process, something quite common in most of history, you'd have 512 ancestors, and at 10 generations (or 200 years estimated) it would be 1,024 ancestors. According to Olsen, probably 5% of these or about 51 of them are not who the record says. But that could work both ways, of course, if one is interested in determining your descent from a particular individual. That individual, he or she, might be connected to you through some secret path, perhaps one involving a mailman, a milkman, or a deliveryman (or milkmaid or mail woman or other person. Who knows?) and, two, beyond a certain point in history, if someone lived in the region where you had ancestors (which could be a much wider region than you think) then that person, if they have living descendants, is like to be to be your ancestor too.

For more on the writing of Steve Olsen see: http://steveolson.com/

Confucianism, Communism, and their Intersection in North Korean Symbolology.

Confucianism is one of, if not the most, influential of ideologies and philosophies that has shaped the thinking and culture of much of east Asia. (When I was at Cornell studying Chinese history and culture we used to refer to Confucianism as "the C-word" because whenever we used the term to discuss an aspect of Chinese history, a professor or class mate would be quick to seize on its use and demand that we clarified not just what we meant but which aspect or variation or interpretation of Confuciansm we were referring to.)

Confucianism with its strong emphasis on learning, education, and social training for the benefit of all has had great influence in this part of the world.

Some, mostly Koreans, would argue that nowhere has the influence of Confucianism on society and culture been greater than in Korea. (It's worth reminding people that for most of modern history until 1945, the Korean peninsula had been one unified nation and one unified people.) I remember once in Taiwan having a Korean state that Korean society was more Confucian than that of China and Taiwan. ( a statement many in China or Taiwan would disagree with, by the way, but interesting in that at least some Koreans claimed their society to be the best example of a Confucian society on the planet.)

But what about North Korea? Does its not just Communist, but extremely Communist, society show Confucian influence? Believe it or not the answer is a resounding yes and in many ways.

Remember this symbol, perhaps the best known Communist symbol in the world today?

This symbolizes the union of farmers and factory workers in Communist society. The scythe or sickle, symbol of the farmer, linked with the hammer, symbol of a factory worker, united together for the benefit of both. (at least that's the idea. Like many things, Communism was a great idea in theory but not so wonderful in practice, but that's a subject for another day. Just work with me here and enjoy the pretty symbols please.)

So, is this symbol used in North Korea? Well, kind of. Check this out.

This is the flag of the symbol of the Korean Workers' Party, the Communist party of North Korea. On the left, of course, we have the hammer, symbolizing the factory workers, and on the right, we have the scythe symbolizing the farmers, but what's this thing in the middle?

That is a brush, known in Chinese as a "mao-bi"( 毛筆 ) the traditional writing instrument of a Confucian scholar. After all, what would society be without the inclusion of scholars? 

This "hair pen" (some say the word "brush" is disrespectful in this context) is given a place of reverence and cared for carefully. It is a symbol of education, learning, good manners, and tradition and should be treated as such.

And in Korea, even after decades of Communist dictatorship, it is still treated as one of the symbols of a sound and healthy society, something that needs to be included if people are going to work for the greater good.

MORE READING

Korean Calligraphy

http://www.antiquealive.com/Blogs/Korean_Calligraphy.html

The Flag of the Korean Workers' Party

https://www.crwflags.com/fotw/flags/kp%7Dkwp.html

Elephants in the arena -Roman Gladiator Miniature Wargaming

1. If you would like to see your products reviewed on this blog please contact us.
2. Please support this blog and its author. BUY MY BOOKS!

The other day a friend of mine and I set out to familiarize ourselves with the Habet, Hoc Habet rules from Flagship Games. First we played a game in which two heavy gladiators, a Myrmillio and a Thracian, were paired off, a historically accurate pairing, then after that finished we placed the two figures representing the same characters in the arena along with a pair of elephants and tried out the animal rules. Here a few pictures snapped quickly of the game.

First, let's make it clear, the game was far from historically accurate. Despite the popular image, gladiators did not fight wild animals in the arena. Gladiators fought other gladiators in the arena. The "hunts" of animals were a separate event, a separate part of the game and conducted by other trained specialists called Venatores with the events, the fights against animals, being called Venatio. The Venatores were armed and equipped differently than the gladiators (despite there being several categories of gladiators.)

In Habet, Hoc Habet, humans are controlled completely by the players while animals move in a random manner depending on a mixture of random chance and the situation the find themselves in. Therefore the game consisted of two heavily armed and armored gladiators with swords (one curved sword and one straight sword) chasing around two elephants until, by random chance and events, the elephants turned charged and stepped on one of the gladiators crushing his arm completely. (Oh well, sounds like a realistic outcome at least.) The rules seemed to work fairly for this and be fun to play.

The two gladiators both come from Brigade Miniatures (I think, perhaps Crusade. Both companies make fine Roman gladiator figures.) while the elephants are plastic, pre-painted and come from Schleich. They were purchased off the shelf in a Target Department store and, I think, are their model Asian female elephants. I don't claim they are completely historically accurate or necessarily in scale. In point of fact, the elephants from Carthage were of a now extinct variety that was neither an Asian nor an African elephant while some of the other elephants from the far eastern fringes of the Roman Empire may have been Asian Elephants. These were, in my opinion, "good enough for gaming" although I would have been more careful, if, for instance, I were building a museum model or diorama.

The arena is mine, scratch built, and I plan to show more photos of it at various stages of construction in the future.

Book Review: Osprey Mongol Warrior, 1200-1350. Osprey Warrior 84.

Notes: 

1. If you would like to see your products reviewed on this blog please contact us.
2. This review appeared previously on a different blog that I wrote.
3. Please support this blog and its author. BUY MY BOOKS!

Mongol Warrior, 1200-1350. Osprey Warrior  84.

Written by Stephen Turnbull, and Illustrated by Wayne Reynolds.

Scope – big

Completeness –  Good

Appeal - good

Accuracy –good as far as I know

In 2004, I had the privilege of attending Cornell University and studying East Asian Studies and Chinese history. During this time, at least one of my fellow grad students and I had a discussion about Osprey books. His views were negative, but not necessarily due to the contents. According to him, if you have credentials they wish, Osprey will work hard to recruit you to write a book for them (he said he’d received this treatment. I find that claim believable, but did not see evidence of it.)  He also said that most academics, including his advisor, look down on people who write Osprey books. The combination had led to some dramatic conversations and stressful but humorous events in his life. 

But speaking as someone with some academic training in history (I ultimately earned a master’s degree in the subject) although Osprey books can be a bit hit and miss, this one came through for me in a clutch. I was taking a seminar on Marc Polo and the Mongol Empire with Dr. Charles Peterson, now retired, and had my heart set on writing a paper on the logistics of the Mongol Horde. What did those folks eat and how did they maintain themselves as they rode from one end of the Eurasian landmass to the other and back, conquering everything in their path.  Professor Peterson thought I’d have trouble finding that information and encouraged me to choose a different topic. But I was determined to look deeper into this.

Although I tried the usual academic databases for scholarly papers on the subject of what the Mongols ate, I just wasn’t finding the information.

However, when I purchased this Osprey book, bing! –there it was. A very good and properly sourced description of what the Mongol warrior ate when he was on campaign. I tracked down the sources, tracked down other articles by the same author (John Masson Smith), began looking at his sources, and had successfully tapped into the vein and soon had written a good paper on the subject that I am still proud of to this day. (If I had it to do over again, I would also track down who had cited the paper that excited me, but that’s another matter. We live, we learn, we hone and improve our skills and historical research and scholarship is the same way.)

So, how is this book anyway? Quite good. It’s 64 pages long, with a section of beautiful full color paintings in the front and black and white illustrations throughout. The contents are concise yet seem quite complete for people who wish to understand the Mongol Warrior of this period and how he and the army he fought with were such a success.

Recruitment, Training, Appearance and Dress, Daily Life, Campaign Life, Tactics and how the Mongol armies of the time adapted to the new challenges they met on their far flung wide reaching campaigns, as well as a glossary, bibliography, and index are all addressed in this informative yet concise book. I recommend it highly.  

Did the Chinese discover America? Is Gavin Menzies a genius? Hell, no. Smallpox shows they did not.

Notes: 

1. If you would like to see your products reviewed on this blog please contact us.
2.Please support this blog and its author. BUY MY BOOKS!

Sometime around 2003, a man named Gavin Menzies wrote a book entitled "1421, the year China Discovered the World." In this book, he advocated that the Chinese had built a large fleet and sailed around the world discovering new lands such as Australia and the Americas and trading and interacting with the people there long before the Europeans did. It was an exciting idea and it captured the imagination of many people around the world.

Menzies based his theory on the fact that around that time the Chinese did build a large fleet of vessels and ships and sailed around Asia going as far as the east coast of Africa near Eritria. Since many records of the voyages were lost or even deliberately destroyed soon after (for reasons having to do with Chinese politics of the time and differing opinions on the voyages) Menzies felt free to assume the Chinese might have done virtually anything imaginable during that time when he could find gaps in the record. Furthermore, Menzies liked to travel the world seeing different countries and different things and when he did, whenever he encountered things he personally could not understand (which was frequent) he would often tie what he saw in with his theory that the Chinese of that time had gone on vast global voyages around the world and create an explanation for these things, an explanation that often only made sense to him, and universally used these unproven Chinese historical voyages as the explanation. (If you've ever read Von Daniken's equally goofy book, Chariot of the Gods, in which we learn that the key to understanding much of ancient history is to insert space aliens whenever possible, you have seen this style of thinking before.)

Unfortunately, there were often large leaps in his logic and gaps in his knowledge of actual history and the result is a very silly book full of silly claims. The book is universally panned by Chinese historians, who at best, don't wish to talk about the book and others who scream when the topic comes up.


"But wait," someone will say, "Pete, how do you KNOW, yes, really KNOW, that the book and its premise is false? Is it not possible that you are too locked into a certain framework and tradition and pattern of thinking to see its brilliance? Isn't it possible that Gavin Menzies might be right, after all his books were best sellers and almost no one anywhere reads your books, and you might be wrong? Who can say?"

Well, sorry boys and girls, although history is a social science, and does require large amounts of interpretation with much room for discussion, debate, and disagreement, some things are not arbitrary. Some things are firmly grounded in evidence. And one of these things is the idea that the
Chinese did not arrive or settle or explore the "New World" in the pre-Colombian times.

And how do we know this?

Simple. Smallpox. Smallpox was a deadly disease endemic to both much of Europe and much of China during this time. (In many parts of China, smallpox was considered a normal part of childhood and some Chinese medical practitioners of the time thought it had something to do with material or energies in the mother's womb. -forgive me. I'll try and find a citation for this. I did write a paper on smallpox in China once at Cornell when I earned my MA. OK, not good enough. You deserve better. Here's one. http://booksandjournals.brillonline.com/content/journals/10.1163/15734218-12341377#FN60 Check around endnote 60. Follow it, tap into the vein, and you shall be blessed with the chance to learn a great deal about how the Chinese of centuries ago sometimes connected the disease smallpox with "fetal poisons." Lucky you. Ask and you shall receive.) 

So, okay, smallpox was endemic to much of China.

Smallpox was endemic to much of Europe.

Smallpox was unknown in the new world until the arrival of Columbus in 1492.

How can we be sure of this? Because when the Europeans arrived in the Americas, they brought smallpox and it killed huge swathes of the native American peoples. They were hit with the disease like they'd never been hit with it before.

Why?

BECAUSE THEY'D NEVER BEEN HIT WITH IT BEFORE, -SIMPLE HUH?

Yeah, and if Gavin Menzies was right, well, those poor, sorry, smallpox infected Indians who died in such large numbers from smallpox contagion when the Europeans arrived, well, they would have been hit with it before and the devastation would not have been so great when the Europeans would have arrived.

Yup, simple, huh? Yup, Gavin Menzies books are stupid. Nevertheless, I hope to write more about  them, and other varieties of pseudohistory here in the future.

By the way, as if the subject weren't ridiculous enough already, Gavin Menzies book, "1421, when China discovered the world," was released under a new title for the American audience -"1421, when China discovered America." Apparently it was felt Americans did not really care too much about the rest of the world. Sadly, there's probably more truth to this than to the rest of Menzies thinking.

Roman Gladiator Miniature Wargaming figures

Notes: 

1. If you would like to see your products reviewed on this blog please contact us.
2. Please support this blog and its author. BUY MY BOOKS!

Chief among my writing projects is a Wargamers guide to Roman Gladiator gaming. Therefore expect posts on the subject.

For our first, a quick view some of the figures involved. These figures are generally 28mm tall and were manufactured by either Brigade Games or Crusader miniatures, two of the best manufacturers of historically authentic Roman Gladiator gaming miniatures. 

All figures were painted by me. 

Gladiatorial battles in the arenas of the Roman Empire are an interesting and complex topic. 

Gladiators tended to fit certain "types" and although some variation and creativity was allowed, these types were mandated by law. Furthermore, the crowd and the sponsors knew what they wanted and despite some local and regional variation gladiators tended to fall in certain categories.  

Hoplomachii -a stylized Roman idea of what a Greek warrior should look like. The figure on the left is from Brigade
Games while the two on the right are from Crusader. 

Eques -Gladiators who began their combat on horseback but then dismounted and fought on foot. They were only paired against each other. Figures are from Crusader Miniatures.

Unusual gladiators -on the left we have a pair of Arbelas or Scissors and on the right we have a pair of very heavily armored Crupellarius. In both pairs the figure on the left is from Crusader Miniatures while the one on the right is from Brigade Games.

Thracians -a heavily armored gladiator that was based on the Roman stereotype of a Thracian warrior. The Thracians lived in what is now Bulgaria. Figures are a mix of Crusader and Brigade figures.

Secutores -a heavily armored gladiator who specialized in fighting the retarius,. Again, figures are a mix of Brigade and Crusader Figures.

Dimachaeri -Figures who fought with two swords and no shield. The two on the left are from Crusader and the one on the right is from Wargames Foundry. I am not sure if he is authentic as his face is exposed. Few gladiators fought this way.

Myrmillio -a common type of heavily armored gladiator. A mixture of Crusader and Brigade figures.

Two packs of condemned men from Crusader Miniatures facing a lion from Monday Knight Productions. Not exactly gladiators but part of the millieu.  Romans believed in public punishment and execution.

Spectators, officials, casualties and wounded and defeated gladiators from a variety of manufacturers.

Retarii and Laquearri -these figures came from a variety of sources including some Brigade figures (no Crusader) as well as some bargain bin figures whose origins are completely unknown. A couple came from RAFM who produced a pack of gladiators in 25mm some of whom I question as to their historical accuracy.

Old Minfigs 25mm Gladiators from the 1980s.